Graduate School Applications
- Posted by Andrew Bailey on Thursday, March 30, 2006 at 5:18 PM
| 
5 Comments |
My future plans are becoming increasingly clear. I have a handful of funded offers from excellent Ph.D programs, and am waitlisted at a 'top 25' school and two 'top 5' schools. So whatever else happens, I will acquire a Ph.D in my academic discipline of choice, beginning this fall. And it looks like the Ph.D will be a good one too; one of the funded admits is a solidly 'top 15' department. With April 15 (the date for final decisions) looming, it won't be all that long before my future is settled.
I am not surprised with the schools that rejected my application outright (Rutgers, Princeton, Cornell, and UC Irvine): Rutgers and Princeton are, well, Rutgers and Princeton, and there is no shame in a rejection letter from either. Cornell took an exceptionally small class this year, and not many students in my areas of interest. Irvine is a politicized department, and an application as clearly analytic as mine is bound to be controversial. From what I hear, a faculty member (on the adcom) must go to bat for a candidate who is obviously and overwhelmingly analytic or historically-minded student if that student is to receive an admissions offer.
Looking back, I’m aware of several mistakes in the process that could have been avoided. First, my personal statements should have been more department-customized. None of them were the same, but each followed a similar format, style, and outline. I get the sense that my chances at Princeton, for example, could have been improved if I had spent more time connecting their strengths to my interests. Second, I should have cultivated personal contacts at several schools more carefully (and systematically). Networking is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and I should have used it more to my advantage. Luckily, in the months since I submitted my applications, I’ve had the chance to go to a few conferences and broaden my circle of philosophical acquaintances.
I went with the same writing sample at all the schools I applied to. More than one committee particularly liked it, so I think the move was wise. However, in retrospect, I would have eliminated the appendix (a proof for a modal/counterfactual rule of inference) for at least two the applications I submitted (that is, for those departments less likely to be impressed by a technical display).
I would have applied to Yale had I known of their recent high-profile faculty hires (which weren’t made public until after applications were due). Another school which hasn't been all that attractive to study at until this spring is Oxford, given their recent acquisition of John Hawthorne and an offer in the works for Gail Fine.
Coulda woulda shoulda.
All told, I am happy with how things have turned out. I’ll have as good of opportunities as a Biola University undergrad could hope for.
5 Comments:
at 8:03 PM said... The faculty and staff of Shaggy Dog University would like to extend an offer of fully un-funded PhD Program. We here at Shaggy Dog University endeavor to pile the s*** higher and deeper
We look forward to your attendance at our esteemed university.
Raz the Knave, PhD
at 12:25 AM said... Congratu-stinkin-lations!
Kay at 7:01 PM said... Awesome, awesome... What's your concentration going to be? or is that undecided yet? (Or did I miss it...?)
at 12:55 PM said... Concentration? I thought concentration was a % stated on a dog food bag. I am a dog gone good student with Attention Deficiet Disorder. How can I concentrate on any thing, let alone analyze something?
Steve at 11:50 PM said... Andrew M. Bailey is super legit.
